The Invisible Man...kins

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Mankins need to apologize to Bob Kraft first.

Then approach the Pats about his contract.

I like the way the Pats are handling the situation. Ignoring Mankins and moving on as if he was out for the season.

The problem is that this is the only way to proceed. Mankins did the most unthinkable thing that a NFL guard could have done, he crapped on his boss in front of the media.

There really is NO WHERE to go with this issue until Mankins hold a press conference and apologizes.

Further, BB HAS TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF HIM or BB is opening a pandora box that simply cannot be opened.

Employees simply cannot crap on their employeer. It just cannot happen.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, I'm of the opinion they offered him too much, but my opinion isn't worth a sack of beans. I'll trust they value his contribution up to what they offered him.

Hopefully, that and a little bit more, otherwise we have future problems if they are making their top offer in the first offer.
I wonder if this had been his UFA year, if he would be uner contract now.
My feeling is that the offer he got is closer to what he would get on the open market than the biggest deal a G ever signed would be.
Surely if he was the best G in the NFL, teams would have approach him as an RFA, right?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think this has been answered by drafting him #1 and by the offer that was made to him. I think the Pats offered a deal consistent with how good they feel he is (or better put the correct FIRST OFFER for that). If they just dont want to pay a G they wouldnt have made the offer they did,

I think the situation is quite similar to what they went through with Asante. They wanted him, too. Just not at $9M. Sides aren't as far apart this time, but they may still be too far apart. Likely more than a million per and therefore likely more than a couple of million short on the guaranteed money. Key difference now is under the tag Asante had enough on the line to make it worth his while to show up on a promise to let him go in 2008. Mankins doesn't have enough on the line financially even if they restored the original tender and they won't set a precedent of promising not to tag a player who has never been tagged even heading into a season that may never come to be...

That's why you don't trade him now. He has more value to you on the roster than in draft compensation that, if you toe the line, you may yet realize when it can help you.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Oh yes, for sure Mankins needs to come back to the table. He's being the hard ass now and as you said, the ball is in his court. My hope is that Kraft can be the bigger man, woo logan back to the table and appeal to Mankins emotionally, and get this thing done.

Patjew out.

My opinion is that this would make Kraft the lesser man.

You cannot IMHO have employees ****ting on their boss as a way to get a raise.

It just does not work, and if Kraft lets it happen once, guess what?

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?

I just saw an article over on NFL.com by Jason LaCanfora about what he thinks teams should do with the remaining high profile holdouts. He covers Revis, of course. His recommendation is pay him. Then he covers McNeill and Jackson and Merriman in SD (pay him, trade him, play it out respectively). Then he oddly opines about Haynesworth.

That's it. No other holdouts on the media radar, apparently. I wonder how Logan and his agent feel about the lack of attention his particular holdout seems to generate. I also think it's interesting that his agent also represents one of the Charger holdouts, Jackson, I believe.

And even locally, opining about whether Tommy will get a deal he's already indicated he will play without this week, this month, this year, next year... And now whether Welker is really as driven as he appears because he loves the game or simply jonesing for a new deal... That crap dominates the airwaves with nary a mention of the invisible mankins.

No mention of Mankins IS interesting, I wonder why LaCanfora left him out of his commentary! Did he just forget about Logan? Or maybe he thinks it's too tricky to do any actual analysis on so he took the easy way out and hit on the well-heeled 'stories' like TFB's. Who knows, but the bolded is good question. He'll watch tonight I'm sure so I hope our OL is absolutely BEASTLY.

I vote wait it out for a bit and see what happens, jmho tho. I wish none of this had happened in the first place but it has so we roll with it.

 

[TheWill]

The problem is that this is the only way to proceed. Mankins did the most unthinkable thing that a NFL guard could have done, he crapped on his boss in front of the media.

There really is NO WHERE to go with this issue until Mankins hold a press conference and apologizes.

Further, BB HAS TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF HIM or BB is opening a pandora box that simply cannot be opened.

Employees simply cannot crap on their employeer. It just cannot happen.

I was thinking the same thing. He receives a perfectly legitimate contract offer, and responds by publicly trashing the owner and organization? I'm certainly not an NFL owner, but that would give me second thoughts about hiring this guy. And third thoughts, too. Actually, I'd probably tell to get lost if he came to me looking for a contract as a free agent.

I realize there are Dan Snyders and Jerry Jones' out there, but most of the owners in this league aren't that crazy, right? They're not going to pay more than a guy's talent is worth, especially not if he's the kind to hold out and dump on his own team...

Doesn't this hurt Mankins too?

 

[Deus Irae]

I was thinking the same thing. He receives a perfectly legitimate contract offer...

People keep making this claim without having seen the offer. The player's agent has stated that the offer was not what was reported.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

People keep making this claim without having seen the offer. The player's agent has stated that the offer was not what was reported.

Regardless of the offer, Mankins put himself in a position where any self respecting business man would not be the first to apologize.

It is simply a no-win situation.

If Mankins were to call Kraft on the phone and apologize, Kraft would surely look to resign him. But it has to come from Mankins first.

 

[Deus Irae]

Regardless of the offer, Mankins put himself in a position where any self respecting business man would not be the first to apologize.

It is simply a no-win situation.

If Mankins were to call Kraft on the phone and apologize, Kraft would surely look to resign him. But it has to come from Mankins first.

You're welcome to your opinion. We'll have to continue disagreeing on this one.

 

[Kontradiction]

Well, Evans is making around $8.1M/year. He's 26 and Mankins is 28. At 28, Mankins is or would be the second youngest offensive lineman on this team. I've said this before, and I guess I'll say it again: I would give Mankins something like a 5 year, $35.5M contract. Unlike Evans' contract, I would pay the bulk of the money up front to him, especially this year to take advantage of the uncapped year. With this deal, Mankins will be the second highest paid guard in the league (I see it this way because Evans is the better run blocker from what I've seen). If the offer was in that ballpark, then the fault lies with Mankins. If the offer wasn't in that ballpark, then the fault lies with the Pats. Mankins and Vollmer are two good guys to build your new-look offensive line around in the coming years and Mankins is a big part of the reason for why Brady can step up in the pocket and deliver the throw. If the offer wasn't around there, I say pay the man and bring him back in... especially with the sounds of how his back-ups are doing in TC. If the offer WAS in that ballpark and he still wants more then let it play out.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Mike Reiss weighs in...

As I understand it, the Patriots never had a five-year contract offer on the table for Mankins. The offers were six years (through 2015) and seven years (through 2016), and they were extensions that were tacked on to the end of 2010. If I was currently in the Patriots' shoes, I'd place a call to Mankins and say, "Look, somewhere along the lines this train got off the tracks. Let's try to get it back, because you are the type of player we want around here. We aren't thrilled with some of the things you said, but we're willing to overlook it in hopes that you and your agent are willing to compromise a bit." Then you get in a conference room and work it out until there is a resolution. It shouldn't be that hard; it's the same way the Texans just did it with Andre Johnson. Robert Kraft often says that the football business is about quality depth management. I think he could add it's also about quality risk management, and right now, I see the Patriots incurring quite a bit of risk without Mankins and Kaczur. So I'd focus on a resolution tactic. Meanwhile, Mankins is going to have to be flexible as well. It's going to take two sides to strike a deal.

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/columns/story?columnist=reiss_mike&id=5451938

 

[wdkantro2]

This is pretty much conjecture on my part, but as Reiss said, the offers were to be tacked on to the 2010 tender at $3.2M or whatever it is. Based on Mankins reaction, I think he was under the impression that he would never have to sign the tender. Then, the Pats offered him extensions instead of a new contract. That's where his unhappiness comes from, and all that "They didn't keep their word" stuff comes from.
I think they should just forget about the tender and offer him a 5 year contract at about 10% less than what Evans got.
But just to play devils advocate...did anyone play worse in the last SB than Mankins?

 

[Deus Irae]

Mike Reiss weighs in...

As I understand it, the Patriots never had a five-year contract offer on the table for Mankins. The offers were six years (through 2015) and seven years (through 2016), and they were extensions that were tacked on to the end of 2010. If I was currently in the Patriots' shoes, I'd place a call to Mankins and say, "Look, somewhere along the lines this train got off the tracks. Let's try to get it back, because you are the type of player we want around here. We aren't thrilled with some of the things you said, but we're willing to overlook it in hopes that you and your agent are willing to compromise a bit." Then you get in a conference room and work it out until there is a resolution. It shouldn't be that hard; it's the same way the Texans just did it with Andre Johnson. Robert Kraft often says that the football business is about quality depth management. I think he could add it's also about quality risk management, and right now, I see the Patriots incurring quite a bit of risk without Mankins and Kaczur. So I'd focus on a resolution tactic. Meanwhile, Mankins is going to have to be flexible as well. It's going to take two sides to strike a deal.

As New England Patriots' injury report grows, fans getting more anxious about Logan Mankins' status - ESPN Boston

Did you catch Bruschi's response during his chat today?

Worst case scenario we will see Mankins return in Week 10. That's how he will get his year toward free agency. Mankins is serious. The Patriots need to step up.

Chat: Chat with Tedy Bruschi, Mike Reiss - SportsNation - ESPN Boston

Edit: Looking back at this post, I see potential confusion, so let me add a disclaimer. Bruschi was responding to a question he was asked in the chat. It was not a direct response to Reiss.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Did you catch Bruschi's response during his chat today?
Worst case scenario we will see Mankins return in Week 10. That's how he will get his year toward free agency. Mankins is serious. The Patriots need to step up.


Chat: Chat with Tedy Bruschi, Mike Reiss - SportsNation - ESPN Boston

Interesting!

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Here was the entire Q in question plus the Q and A that followed.

Q. Hi Mike, is it time to tear up the tender offer to Logan Mankins and offer him that 5-year, $35 million offer to begin immediately? Would that get him into camp? Didn't the Pats do something like that for Richard Seymour a few years ago? It appears that the line really needs Mankins, especially with Kaczur going down. -- Jim C. (Seminole, Fla.)


A. Jim, the Patriots did do that for Seymour back in 2006. I think it was the only time they have torn up a year of a contract and I think they ended up regretting it. As I understand it, the Patriots never had a five-year contract offer on the table for Mankins. The offers were six years (through 2015) and seven years (through 2016), and they were extensions that were tacked on to the end of 2010. If I was currently in the Patriots' shoes, I'd place a call to Mankins and say, "Look, somewhere along the lines this train got off the tracks. Let's try to get it back, because you are the type of player we want around here. We aren't thrilled with some of the things you said, but we're willing to overlook it in hopes that you and your agent are willing to compromise a bit." Then you get in a conference room and work it out until there is a resolution. It shouldn't be that hard; it's the same way the Texans just did it with Andre Johnson. Robert Kraft often says that the football business is about quality depth management. I think he could add it's also about quality risk management, and right now, I see the Patriots incurring quite a bit of risk without Mankins and Kaczur. So I'd focus on a resolution tactic. Meanwhile, Mankins is going to have to be flexible as well. It's going to take two sides to strike a deal.


Q. Is the real blockage in the Logan Mankins negotiation that the Patriots won't give him a raise until after the 2010 season? By rule they don't have to. Did any of the other 200 players in the same position as Mankins get resigned by their team to a new contract and get a raise the first year? -- David (North Attleboro, Mass.)


A. Good question, David, and I'm not sure the exact answer when it comes to restricted free agents. I know D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Elvis Dumervil didn't get much of a boost, if at all, in 2010. But Mankins' situation is a bit different because technically he is not under contract.

I would simply say I question anything Mike says that is preceded by the incorrect statement that the Pat's tore up a year of Seymour's rookie contract. They did no such thing. Rather they advanced him a few million of his future money in 2005 via renegotiation, which is what they do any time a player gets his salary adjusted, and did an extension in 2006 that in fact made his deal a 4 year $8M deal with $30M in new money based on the 2007-2009 seasons the extension added. Off the top of my head because Miguel unfortunately deletes the details of deals once players depart, Adam JT13 reported at the time that Seymour got a renegotiation bonus of $6M up front in 2006 and an Option Bonus of $18M+ in 2007 that was guaranteed by $19M in 2007 if it wasn't picked up.

 

[RayClay]

I think this has been answered by drafting him #1 and by the offer that was made to him. I think the Pats offered a deal consistent with how good they feel he is (or better put the correct FIRST OFFER for that). If they just dont want to pay a G they wouldnt have made the offer they did,

Well, they drafted him #32. I know what you meant, but it's not like he was a franchise pick there. He was a fairly high pick, pretty high for a guard.

 

[vyrago]

Well, they drafted him #32. I know what you meant, but it's not like he was a franchise pick there. He was a fairly high pick, pretty high for a guard.

And though his is ultimately meaningless, many if not most draft commentators thought he was a reach at 32.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

And thought his is ultimately meaningless, many if not most draft commentators thought he was a reach at 32.

Mankins has been both lucky and not lucky. Lucky to have gone in the 1st round and having been paid a good 7 figures more than he would have made had he been drafted later as projected. Nobody else woulda taken him in the 1st.

Unlucky in that his free agency got restricted because of the timing of the non-CBA season.

I agree that despite the harsh words from Logan, Kraft should reach out with some sort of words of reconciliation and a modified offer even if not that substantive and initiate dialog to see if time has changed perspectives. Maybe he has; we just don't know. I just don't think that Mankins will respond to that now and that the likely scenario is that he does the week 10 return to become a UFA next season.

 

[RayClay]

And thought his is ultimately meaningless, many if not most draft commentators thought he was a reach at 32.

Same general area as Light and Adrian Klemm, if I'm not mistaken. And Mankins was a tackle, not guard, a convert.

I will say, I don't think the bad blood will be a problem on the Pats side, if Mankins and his agent sit down and address the realities of the situation and stop pouting. In other words, get the best deal under the circumstances, not some ideal that got screwed up by the league contract.

Everybody has to do that at their job, situations, rules and companies change. If Mankins decides he wants to play football and get the best contract he can, BB and Kraft will forget about the talk, they've seen it all before.